Mendoza v. Cate

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/23/15 ordering ( Evidentiary Hearing set for 6/8/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd.) The evidentiary hearing will be limited to petitioner's claim t hat he received ineffective assistance as a result of his trial counsel's failure to advise him that the charge to which he pled guilty was a "strike" under California's 3 strikes law and that he was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective performance. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-1710 MCE DAD P

v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 27, 2014, this court issued an order

19

setting an April 21, 2014 evidentiary hearing with respect to petitioner’s claim that he received

20

ineffective assistance as a result of his trial counsel’s failure to advise him that the charge to

21

which he pled guilty was a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes law and that he was

22

prejudiced by his counsel’s ineffective performance. On April 14, 2014, the undersigned granted

23

respondent’s request to vacate the date set for the evidentiary hearing pending the filing and

24

disposition of a motion to dismiss. On April 21, 2014, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. On

25

July 3, 2014, this court issued findings and recommendations recommending that the motion to

26

dismiss be denied. The district judge assigned to this action adopted those findings and

27

recommendations by order dated March 11, 2015, and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. An evidentiary hearing is reset for June 8, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned

3

in Courtroom 27.1
2. The evidentiary hearing will be limited to petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective

4
5

assistance as a result of his trial counsel’s failure to advise him that the charge to which he pled

6

guilty was a “strike” under California’s Three Strikes law and that he was prejudiced by his

7

counsel’s ineffective performance.

8

Dated: March 23, 2015

9
10
11
12

DAD:8
Mendoza1710.reset

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If this date is not available, convenient or satisfactory to either party, counsel are directed to
meet and confer, consult with Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo and then file a stipulation and
proposed order resetting the evidentiary hearing to an agreed upon, available date.
2